PRINCIPALES LEGADOS

The Ma’adi-Buto culture has only recently become part of Egypt’s arch- aeological sequence. The large cemetery and settlement complex at Ma’adi and Buto (c.3400 BC) are the defining sites for the culture; hence the

culture bears the sites’ name. Apart from Ma’adi and Buto, approximately ten other sites have been identified as belonging to this culture, although most are much smaller in size (Fig. 6.28).

Excavations at Ma’adi found three types of settlement structures. The first is unique in Egypt: a subterranean house measuring 3 by 5 metres (9.84 by 16.4 ft) in area and up to 3 metres (9.84 ft) deep (Fig. 6.29). A succession of postholes along the house’s walls suggests that there was an above-ground wooden structure that would have given the building a striking appearance. This house plan and the presence of hearths,

half-buried jars and domestic debris imply that this house type was similar to those at Beersheba in southern Palestine.

The two other structure types found at Ma’adi are well attested in Egyptian history. The first is an oval hut accompanied by external stone line hearths and partly buried storage jars. The second is a rectangular construction with narrow trenches that held the stalks of plants; this was probably a fenced enclosure of some kind, possibly used to shelter animals.

FIGURE 6.29u _{The subterranean style house found at Ma’adi from above}

(a) and in profile (b). The closest known counterpart to this structure is found in Southwest Asia. Source: Brenda Coelho after Hoffman 1984, Fig. 54

FIGURE 6.28u _{The sites of}

Ma’adi, Buto and Heliopolis, core cultural areas of the Ma’adi-Buto culture of the Delta.

Pottery and lithics comprise the most dominant artefact classes at Ma’adi. Typical Ma’adian pottery vessels were globular with a flat base, a narrow neck and a flared rim; bottle shapes were also found (Fig. 6.30). Ma’adian vessels were rarely decorated but sometimes had marks incised after firing. Like the pot-marks of Upper Egypt, these incisions are poorly understood, but they may signify ownership, manufacturer or contents. Also found were examples of black-topped red ware, some clearly imports from Upper Egypt, but others exemplifying the Ma’adians’ attempt to copy the southern style using local clay. The presence of Palestinian ceramic vessels, most importantly the wavy-handled vessels that were also copied by the Egyptians, suggests commercial links with that area.

Flint-working too was local but influenced by both Upper Egypt and Palestine. Stone vessels carved locally were made from soft stone such as limestone and alabaster, while vessels of hard stone such as basalt appear to be imports. Bone and ivory artefacts consisted mainly of needles and punches, although some combs imported from Upper Egypt were found.

FIGURE 6.30u _{Ma’adian pottery vessels. Note the lugs and handles, which}

archaeologists believe helped facilitate their use in long-distance transport from the evolving cultures to the east. Source: Photograph by D. J. Brewer

Ma’adians were buried in oval pits, in a fetal position, wrapped in a mat or cloth. Originally, the bodies did not appear to be oriented in any particular directions but later they were positioned with the head to the south but facing east, not west, as in the south. What is most distinctive about the graves, however, is the near total absence of grave goods: at most, one or two pottery vessels might be included. No copper has been found in the burials, but often a Nile clam shell (Apsatharia rubens) has been recovered. At other sites, like Buto and Heliopolis, similar burial customs prevailed: burial pits were oval in shape, and bodies were placed in a fetal position, heads to south and facing east. Also evident at these sites was a tendency to copy Upper Egyptian material culture, particularly pottery and its associated Gerzian motifs, as well as the wavy- handled jars. Ma’adi is particularly important, however, because of its evidence for metalworking. While some speculation exists, Ma’adi may have possessed a smelting facility and have traded cast copper objects.

On the basis of all the evidence, Ma’adi appears to have been some- thing of a commercial centre. Its position at the apex of the Delta makes it a perfect intersection for shipping goods between Palestine, Lower and Upper Egypt. Interestingly, Ma’adi seems to have had stronger ties to the Levant and Southwest Asia than to Upper Egypt. Perhaps the 250 km (155.3 miles) stretch of the Nile known as Middle Egypt, where no trace of Predynastic culture has been found, served as a buffer between the cultures. Further evidence for Ma’adi’s role in trade are the remains of donkeys, the beast of burden and caravan animal of the period. The dominance of domestic plants and animals in archaeological excavations at Ma’adi suggests a near-total reliance on agriculture.

Although Ma’adi was a river port and the end point of a land route to the Levant, Buto, located in the northern Delta, may have been a seaport through which contacts with Sumer, Palestine and other cultures were made. Buto’s location near the mouth of the Rosetta branch of the Nile and its proximity to the sea (then much closer to the site than today) placed it on a maritime route over which vast quantities of timber, oil, wine, minerals, pottery and other commodities could be imported and exported. Recent excavations at Buto have recovered clay cones similar to those used to decorate Uruk temples (c.3200 BC) in Mesopotamia,

offering strong support to the claim of long-distance contacts via the sea (Fig. 6.31).

Based on the presence of Upper Egyptian artefacts, three phases have been identified in Ma’adian chronology. The earliest phase coincides with the last half of Naqada I and is best represented by the site of Ma’adi itself. The second phase is identified best with Heliopolis and the earliest levels of Buto, which date to middle Naqada II (e.g. between Naqada IIab and IIcd). The final phase, called Dynasty 0, is represented only at Buto.

In summary, by the end of Naqada II (c.3350 BC), Egyptian centres of

political power such as Hierakonpolis, Naqada, Ma’adi and Buto had developed in both Upper and Lower Egypt, and local traditions began to merge – sometimes rapidly – into a definable national Egyptian character. Recent work at Abydos in Upper Egypt and Minshat Abu Omar in the Delta has revealed that, although Lower and Upper Egypt underwent separate stages of development, by late Naqada II Upper Egyptian culture characteristics were present in the eastern Delta. Excavations at Abydos suggest that at the end of the Naqada Period the cultural unification of

FIGURE 6.31u _{Clay cone temple reconstruction, showing use of cones in}

Upper and Lower Egypt had begun and may have culminated with the legendary unification of Egypt at Dynasty 0 (c.3050 BC). By this time, both

Egypt’s northern and southern sections exhibited what before had been a typically Upper Egyptian material culture, attesting to the gradual cul- tural domination of the north by the south.

By the end of the next period, called Naqada III, many of the features of the Dynastic Period are evident. Tombs at Abydos and evidence at Hierakonpolis indicate that these areas were ruled by local chieftain-kings who differentiated themselves from their subjects using symbols later assumed by the kings of Dynasty 1. Houses at Naqada were arranged along winding streets, indicating a city plan. Ivory tags with proto- hieroglyphs were in use and have been recovered from several sites, sug- gesting that, by the end of the Predynastic Period, writing was already established as a means of conveying rank, title and ownership. The cultural momentum established in the Naqada Period carried over into Dynasty I, finally culminating in the great era of Egyptian history, the Pyramid Age.

C H A P T E R 7

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

The Late Predynastic: